This case concerns Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC and former employee Jennifer Lawson. Greene’s sues Jennifer Lawson for breach of the confidentially agreement that was signed when first employed and Ms. Lawson counter-sues Greene’s for wrongful termination. Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC. is owned by Mary Jane and Allen Green, in Derry, New Hampshire. They own a warehouse and two storefronts originally starting back in the late 1950’s. Greene’s employs 502 individuals in a variety of departments which include sales and marketing, research and development, human resources, and manufacturing. The primary asset of Greene’s Jewelry is their secret patented process for creating a synthetic gold-colored material called “Ever-Gold,” which is used in …show more content…
Facts to be Determined 1. The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson: a. The names and genders of all the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated along with Jennifer Lawson due to the downsizing. b. What is the background and work history of the decision to terminate all of the Junior Executive Secretaries? c. Has there been previous measures of downsizing? d. Does the employment contract state any clause of premature termination? 2. The answers to the questions asked in the previous section are important to establish relevancy in Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale, LLC. v. Jennifer Lawson. a. The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Q1 THE COURT/S IN WHICH THE CASE WAS HEARD (OUTLINE THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
3. Summarize the following Federal Court cases-and find a theme, discuss this theme in a well thought out essay.
Department of Labor (2009, September). Other Workplace Standards: Notices for Plant Closings and Mass Layoffs [White paper]. Retrieved from United States Department of Labor: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm
Discrimination in the workplace continues to be topics and issues of discussion, despite efforts to minimize or eliminate its ugly head. Discrimination is defined as the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people based on race, gender, disability or age (Fieser, 2015). Furthermore, some companies has used other forms in conjunction with discrimination like sexual harassment to mask unjust treatment in the workplace. Lilly Ledbetter was an employee at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc. for over 19 years. During this period, she consistently received low rankings in her annual performance-and-salary reviews. As a result, Lilly received significantly lower raises than her male counterparts, which led to her filing a civil lawsuit
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
In 2005, a female secretary filed a compliment regarding her exclusion from a social gathering on the basis of her gender. The case eventuated from an issue that the manager had not encouraged the secretary to attend the Christmas party which was served by a topless waitress. As a result of the secretary having no knowledge of the party occurring while working that night, she had become distressed by what she believed was happening...
A precedent case changed the way several businesses handle EEOC grievances. In the case of Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp, a female employee brought a lawsuit against her former employer claiming she had been sexually harassed and a lower court jury found in favor of the employee and award her punitive and compensatory damages. The employer did not realize an exclusion from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied to the business due to the small number of employees on the payroll. The Supreme Court found that even though Y&H Corp. did not employ fifteen or more employee it did not preclude a federal district court from hearing the complaint. This case directly influences the relaxed rules related to the Civil Rights Act for smaller businesses. A component of the thought behind a different level of enforcement for small businesses is they cannot handle the monetary implications of higher standards. Since this case in 2006, employers routinely make the applicable enforcement agency aware they fall below the employee threshold and this has provided an enhanced level of protection (Gentry, Robinson, Dibrell, & Franklin, 2013). This has not mitigated the risk that the EEOC will find a small business has violated Title VII and the business owner must appear in court to provide evidence they are a covered employer. The Arbaugh case created
Schipani, C. (2013). Class Action Litigation After Dukes: In Search of a Remedy for Gender Discrimination in Employment. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 46(4), 1249-1277.
The last dimension discussed is the environment. The scores for environment are quite close and even exceed that of other sustainable businesses. Jury (2015) indicated that Michaels Stores Inc. is an arts and crafts store, most of their products are made from paper and there might be other products that contain substances that will be harmful to the people if not properly disposed. Therefore there is a facility where products from paper and cardboard are disposed of properly. Also there is a company that comes in to take away harmful chemicals and dispose of them accordingly.
Keating Daniel. The University Of Chicago Law Review. 1986, Vol 53, Issue 1, p 258.